Applying an equity lens to the student lifecycle: How can we improve key transitions?

The transition to university is a lengthy process and not necessarily time bound. Learners encounter repeated and significant ‘critical stages’ during their studies, which impact capacity to continue and succeed in studies. I have worked long enough in the sector to remember critical debates about how that first week or first month of study was crucial to retention. That thinking soon expanded to recognising the first six months of enrolment as being key. Now we realise that the risk of departure extends throughout the degree cycle, particularly for those students from under-represented backgrounds.

In this short piece, I will explore five stages of the student life cycle from an equity perspective. Drawing on research literature in the field and enriched by student perspectives, I will do two things: 1) foreground the multiple critical stages students encounter and 2) identify implications for educational equity, particularly in this post-Accord environment.

?Thinking about equity

Equity has undoubtedly become the ‘hot’ topic in Australian higher education in the last years. This attention on equity has largely resulted from the Australian Universities Accord, the first whole of sector review since 2008. The final Accord report mentions the term ‘equity’ 197 times (well it did in my word search!). This focus on equity has been heralded as a positive move, but a more cynical perspective might argue that this passion for equitable access is somewhat driven by shrinking undergraduate enrolments and tighter international visa requirements.

?To achieve the ambitious participation targets recommended by the Universities Accord, the sector not only has to ensure students from under-represented backgrounds step into university but equally, are retained until graduation. Applying a student life-cycle lens to this journey (O’Shea et al, 2021) can assist in ensuring appropriate scaffolding for our commencing learners throughout five key stages including 1) Pre-Access; 2) Access; 3) Participation, 4) Attainment and 5) Transition out. Whilst each of these stages is unique, they are equally characterised by challenges for under-represented populations, as explained below.

?Pre-Access

Equity factors impact educational decision making from a young age. For learners who do not have a university biography in the household, it can often mean that the decision to attend university is never considered nor made…as one student explained to me: ‘I don’t think I have ever heard anyone talk about university at home’. Ball and Vincent (1998) would argue that this situation results in limited access to necessary ‘hot’ knowledge about university. This hot or grapevine knowledge, usually derived from social networks, provides local and contextualised insight into educational institutions and is often regarded as a more legitimate than ‘cold’ or official knowledge sources within the institution. For many students, particularly those who are the first in their family to attend university, there may be no ready access to such ‘hot knowledge’ sources. Instead, obtaining this ‘hot’ knowledge may rely on a chance encounter or serendipitous relationship, creating a scenario aptly described by Elle:

‘I actually found out a friend of mine who used to live out the back of my parents was here. She was in her second year; she graduates this semester.?? She helped me out.’ ?

Elle’s chance encounter with a ‘knowledgeable other’ was similarly echoed by other students in interviews, particularly those who were entering university after a significant break in learning (O’Shea, 2016)

?Access

For learners from equity backgrounds attending university is also rarely about just completing an application form or making a decision to attend. Instead, getting to the point of admission may have been a lengthy and complex journey. Students have told me repeatedly how this could be: ?‘an emotionally layered move [with]… repercussions for both learners and those around them’ (O’Shea, 2020, p. 106) . ?A decision sometimes provoked by a significant catalyst: for example, a death, an illness, a job loss, a marriage breakdown. Yet, in our current higher education systems, the histories or biographies of our students often remain hidden or silent. Now some might say that this absence of personal detail is required for learners’ privacy but many students crave or desire that ‘human’ touch, that recognition of them as people rather than simply another ‘face’ on the zoom call or in a lecture theatre . (O’Shea et al, 2023)

?Accessing university can also lead to dramatic shifts in perspectives and identity sometimes leading to a severing of previous relationships or ties, as Eleanor succinctly explained:

‘I’m losing touch with my roots as I go more into an ivory tower, if that makes sense’. (Eleanor, 29, 3rd year, First in Family & identified as having disability, Low-SES, Rural/Isolated)

So, to be clear, attending university is a significant life event for many of these learners, it is not a ‘rite of passage’ or part of an expected trajectory but often a radical detour to what was expected (O’Shea, 2021).?? This deeply transformative nature of education impacting on both learners and their family members. But again, these personal transformations also remain largely ‘hidden’ in the university environment.? Such powerful shifts do not seem to be ‘counted’ or valued. Instead, the particular contexts and lived experiences of our equity bearing students remain largely invisible.?

?Participation

Differences across student populations are equally noted in the patterns of participation and educational choices. For students from underrepresented groups, degree programs may be chosen based on vocational outcome or orientation, in other words those qualifications that are most aligned with labour outcomes. Equally choices about what type of university to attend may also be differentiated according to background or biography. This might include, for example, choosing a university based on perceptions of ‘fit’, thereby avoiding more elite establishments. Sociologically, such decisions are regarded as evidencing structural constraint. An individual may have the appearance of ‘choice’, but this is restricted, influenced by external constraints.?

Alongside such structural constraints, is the recognition that a ‘hidden curriculum’ also exists within universities. This hidden curriculum may be unintentionally replicated in assessments, expectations, lecture discussions where certain academic ‘capitals’ or skills are assumed or taken for granted. Brett, who was in his final year of university explained these differences in terms of not ‘fitting the mould’:

Sometimes I think that university, whilst it provides a framework for further development, if you don’t fit the mould, it’s not really... it doesn’t work for everyone I don’t think, university. (Brett, 33, First in Family & identified as being from a low SES background).

?Attainment

When we think about attainment and success in university, it is important to not only recognise differences in outcomes amongst different cohorts but equally, the various ways academic success is constructed. Common understandings of the term success tend to privilege certain world views and capitals, which are often assumed to be universally valued. Attainment is more than simply achieving good grades. More expansive understandings of what success is within higher education go beyond, what has been termed, the dominant discourse of meritocratic achievement. In my own research, attainment in higher education was variously defined as ‘defying the odds’, as a ‘form of validation’ and also reflecting something more emotional or embodied for individual learners (O’Shea & Delahunty, 2018).

?Transition Out

The final stage is the transition out, often this is one where universities feel that the ‘job is done’ with the post degree environment being outside scope. But opportunities after degrees are similarly demarcated by biography and background. This can often be because students from equity backgrounds are playing by what Bathmaker and colleagues (2013) term as the ‘old rules of the game’. These ‘old rules’ focus on getting good marks whereas the new rules require extracurricular activity / volunteering etc. This misunderstanding was clearly articulated by alumni I interviewed , all of whom were first-in-family (O’Shea, 2023). The anger was palpable as participants reflected on being ‘cheated’ or ‘duped’ by the promises of a degree, promises that did not eventuate in a competitive job market:

?Just having a degree doesn't get you a job. No one thought to tell me, a kid from a family where no one had gone to university, that internships, volunteering, padding out your resume like a preppy sod would make you employable.(Female, 26-30, Science, First in Family, graduated 5yrs).

?Perhaps if someone else in my family had graduated and embarked upon a professional career they also could have given me advice about building the foundations early, such as doing internships and volunteering in places. (Male, 26-30, Law, First in Family, graduated 6 yrs)

?Conclusion

In Australia, the university sector is now entering the post-Accord environment, which brings with it, significant pressure to retain and graduate students from equity backgrounds. Supporting these diverse learners throughout the lifecycle has become a significant policy and political imperative. However, beyond the dictates of government and market agendas, there is also a moral need to ensure that all learners are on an ‘even playing field’ when it comes to attending and succeeding at university. The following are my ideas about what needs to happen right now, to ensure that the ‘open’ door of university is not a ‘revolving’ one:

???????? Adopt a life-cycle approach to engagement to foreground how learners encounter different obstacles and issues across the duration of the degree.

??????? In this era of Big Data and AI, how can we get to know our students a little better – and how might that understanding inform curriculum design and delivery?

??????? We need to ‘(b)ring an equity lens to every decision’ in the pandemic university (Illanes, et al. 2020, p. 5). This means ‘designing for inclusivity’ adopting the principles of University Design for Learning which is a design thinking process involving users in the design process. UDL is basically inclusive design that ensures everyone can participate in everyday life.

??????? Map the educational capitals needed across the academic journey and embed these in the curriculum.

??????? Ensure necessary ‘academic capitals’ required across the entire student life cycle are both foregrounded and embedded in course delivery.

??????? Foreground the need for what Felten (2019) refers to as a “Relentless Welcoming” for our equity-bearing cohorts, which requires ‘communicating a sense of care and belonging through simple practices like using names and asking, “How are you?” (Felten, 2019, N/P ).

Final Thoughts (& Actions)

?

However, some of you reading this might wonder what you can do right now, what small but significant changes could you make to teaching practices or activities, to improve student experience:

·?????? Thinking about the Access stage there are a few things that could be done better. How might universities intentionally create hot knowledge networks for students – this could be via mentoring / creating pods or learning communities / multimodal information delivery or simply by intentionally deconstructing academic terminology.

·?????? Normalise diversity, help seeking behaviours and, fears /anxiety. Confirming or normalising these feelings can be so reassuring to learners experiencing them. Students tell us that the human or personal touch is important– but this does not have to be face to face interaction or endless meetings it might be simply sharing a personal video on-line or highlighting your availability for questions/meetings …many will not take you up on this offer but it will be reassuring to know it is available.

·?????? The family and community of learners often play a key role in this university journey, so it is imperative that higher education institutions work to engage the broader relational networks of learners from more diverse backgrounds. Some principles for doing this are outlined here ( https://www.firstinfamily.com.au/OLT-1.php )

·?????? How can we rethink assessment to ensure that this does not intentionally discriminate or exclude (Check out Ajjawi et al: Assessment for Inclusion )

?

References

?Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Boud, D., & De St Jorre, T (eds) Assessment for Inclusion in Higher Education: Promoting Equity and Social Justice in Assessment. Routledge, UK. Open Access: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003293101/assessment-inclusion-higher-education-rola-ajjawi-joanna-tai-david-boud-trina-jorre-de-st-jorre

?Bathmaker, A., Ingram, N. & Waller, R. (2013). Higher education, social class and the mobilisation of capitals: Recognising and playing the game. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(5-6), 723-743.

?Illanes, P., Law, J., Mendy, A., Sanghvi, S. & Sarakatsannis, J. (2020, March 30). Coronavirus and the campus: How can US higher education organize to respond? McKinsey and Company.

?O’Shea, S (2023, 24 July). The 5 Ms of Peer Mentoring. Needed Now in Teaching and Learning. Available from: [email protected] .

?O’Shea, S (2023): ‘It was like navigating uncharted waters’: exposing the hidden capitals and capabilities of the graduate marketplace. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 45(2), 126-139

?O’Shea, S., (2021). ‘Kids from here don't go to uni’: Considering first in family students’ belonging and entitlement within the field of higher education. European Journal of Education Special Issue: Higher Education access, participation and progression: Inequalities of opportunity. 56(1) 65-77.

?O’Shea, S. (2016). First-in-family learners and higher education: Negotiating the ‘silences’ of university transition and participation. HERDSA Review of Higher Education (Vol 3) 5-23.? Available from www.herdsa.org.au/herdsa-review-higher-education-vol-3/ Q1

?O’Shea, S., & Delahunty, J. (2018). Getting through the day and still having a smile on my face! How do students define success in the university learning environment? Higher Education Research and Development 37(5), 1062-1075.

?O’Shea, S., Koshy, P & Drane, C., (2021). The Implications of COVID-19 for Student Equity in Australian Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. Vol.?43 (6),?576-591.

?O’Shea, S., May, J., Stone, C., & Delahunty, J. (2023). ?First-in-Family Students, University Experience and Family Life: Motivations, Transitions and Participation (Second Edition). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Access available from: https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/76722

?

?

?